Thank you for your feedback.

Actually, the first edited post was on topic, but the remaining posts were absolutely off-topic, even if the first edited post remained, as the content of that post allowed for an off-topic conversation to occur. While the posts could have been removed for being off-topic, their content could also be edited due to a combination of the remaining context and supplied content. If the posts contained both off-topic and on-topic content, only the off-topic content would be removed if it is too far off-topic or has significant problems with supplementary context, both of which are the case here.

The word you used has never been used in a discussion dedicated to what it describes on the JCF. When it is instead more often used in graphic context, off-topic conversation, or both, it becomes a candidate for the filter, as two other forms of the word are already in the filter. You ask to what extent I plan to shield users from words that "fifth-graders" know, but you may also want to consider that these users may very well know these words yet do not want to see them used in a topic in which they do not expect it. This really only applies to content that may be objectionable with enough graphic supplementary context; otherwise, users may feel too restricted to post slightly off-topic when the content-context combination is not objectionable.

Again, you may very well be objecting to the clarity of the rules. If you have any suggestions for an easily interpreted clause that would help other users where you were edited, they would certainly be appreciated. It is difficult to come up with something concise alone, as someone else who might have previously wondered, "if these words were in that particular clause, perhaps I would not have been edited," would definitely have better ideas than someone who can already interpret the rules from the given objective clauses. I will try to come up with something clear to help the users understand this, yet at the same time, I feel this may be too rare a case to remove the objectivity of a certain clause.

Additionally, as I stated in the previous post, warnings are typically provided for objective offenses. The removal of flame tags is almost entirely subjective, and users are warned if they repeat this. This case is far more likely and severe to be repeated than yours, and this is why that particular subjective rule violation easily receives warnings from repetition. Your case is similar, though not to such a severe extent, and while warnings may still be given for the repetition of the offense, it is also very unlikely that it will be repeated. Since there are technically many places where users can mess up or miss something when interpreting subjective rules from the objective rules provided, it is far more reasonable to forego adding subjective clauses and instead have more encompassing objective ones that most people will understand.

Feel free to ask me to clarify anything I have stated.